If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

A feature article in yesterday’s New York Times profiled Obama Administration efforts to create a federal Obamacare exchange. The article explores the massive secrecy behind the federal Exchange, and contrasts the transparency requirements imposed on state-based Exchanges with the non-transparency of HHS officials creating a federal Exchange:Mr. Hash, the director of the federal Office of Health Reform, said the federal exchanges “will operate essentially in the same manner as the state-based exchanges.”

However, they differ in a significant way. States have done their work in public, but planning for the federal exchanges has been done almost entirely behind closed doors….The 2010 health care law says that if a state runs its own exchange, it must “consult with stakeholders,” including consumers and small businesses. Subsequent rules go further, requiring states to consult health care providers, insurers, agents and brokers. Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, has repeatedly emphasized that “states have to meet a standard of transparency and accountability.” A state exchange must have “a clearly defined governing board,” and the board must hold regular public meetings. States as diverse as California, Minnesota, Mississippi and Nevada have Web sites where they post documents laying the groundwork for exchanges. The documents include minutes of public meetings, cost estimates and information about contracts for goods and services.

By contrast, federal officials have disclosed little about their plans, are vague about the financing of the federal exchanges and have refused even to divulge the “request for proposals” circulated to advertising agencies. The federal government requires a state exchange to develop a budget, with “expected operating costs, revenues and expenditures.” States must explain how the revenue will be generated and how the exchange will address “any financial deficits.” Administration officials have not set forth a budget for the federal exchanges. They said they intended to charge “user fees” to the participating health insurance plans, but it is unclear whether the fees are subject to approval by Congress or whether insurers could pass the costs on to consumers.

Because the Obama Administration is once again using a “Do as I Say, Not as I Do” mentality with respect to transparency – imposing requirements on states that the federal government itself refuses to follow – business owners told the Times that “nobody has any idea what the federal exchange will look like.” This lack of transparency increases uncertainty for businesses, states, and individuals, which will only make the law that much less effective.

Candidate Obama said he would televise all health care negotiations on C-SPAN, but the process leading up to Obamacare was plagued with notorious backroom deals. Unfortunately, yesterday’s New York Times story highlights how, after using backroom deals to create Obamacare, the Administration is once again retreating behind closed doors to implement the 2700-page law.
Chris Jacobs
Senior Policy Analyst
Joint Economic Committee
Senate Republican Staff

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

NY Times headline today:Ambiguity in Health Law Could Make Family Coverage Too Costly for ManyBy ROBERT PEAR
Rules proposed by the I.R.S. could leave millions of people in the lower middle class uninsured and frustrate the intent of Congress, which was to expand coverage.

Well, the bureaucratic "interpretation" of the law begin. Thank you, Mrs. Pelosi, we really needed this bill passed so we could find out what's in it.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

I have difficulty understanding this ... these young people were actually subject to deportation. Obama changed that and said, "Okay, you can stay, as long as you are in school, in the military, or have a job, and are responsible." Now, however, they learn that this does not include participating in Obamacare, and they're ticked off. They could still go home to their native country (whichever it might be, but most being from Mexico) if they wanted to ... which already has universal health care.

I do remember the concern during the proposal of this law that illegals would also be able to participate, Oh, no, this law will not permit that to happen. Sounds like it almost was about to happen back in June. Guess now they read the law again & found out it's not allowed? [I couldn't get the cut 'n paste and quote to work properly. Sorry.]

In dozens of campaign stops, President Barack Obama has trumpeted young undocumented immigrants, known as DREAMers, as the country’s future and said he wants to do everything he can to help them.

But the latest news surrounding his Affordable Care Act has left many in the Latino community speechless.

A decision was made last month to disqualify young undocumented immigrants – many who will be allowed to stay in the United States as part of a new federal policy – from receiving health coverage under the president’s sweeping health care reform.

That decision was made quietly and only became public Tuesday, when an article about it was published in The New York Times. The secrecy surrounding the new rule prompted an outcry from immigration advocates who felt like the rug was pulled from under them.

“We had been working closely with the administration, so we were quite surprised and shocked by the new restrictions on health coverage,” Marielena Hincapiť, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, an advocacy group for low-income immigrants, told the New York Times. “This is a shortsighted, reactionary and bad public policy.”
Hispanic civil rights groups said they were unsure why the administration would try to integrate undocumented youth through immigration relief yet shut them out of the new health care system that is being created.

“We have tried to push for more understanding on why they took these steps,” Jennifer M. Ng’andu, a health policy specialist at Hispanic rights group the National Council of La Raza told Fox News Latino. “You can’t overcome politics by whittling away at the rights of legal immigrants.”

When Obama’s Deferred Action program was first announced in June, it seemed as though the individuals that met the requirements of the program would be eligible for the health care reform benefits. The requirements included being brought into the country before the age of 16, being currently enrolled in school or being a graduate, and being classified as “lawfully present” residents.

However in late August, the administration ruled that those benefiting from this immigration reform would be specifically excluded from the definition of “lawfully present.”

White House spokesman Nick Papas said the deferred-deportation program “was never intended” to give immigrants access to federal health benefits.

Maybe Romneys wont cost us as much and at least provide a Dr when we need one. We know Obamas stinks some of us are already seeing it in action. We know he lied he said it wouldnt be a tax and surprise here it is. He lied and said we could keep our DR , keep our insurance more lies. You cant keep your Dr when he tells you he is no longer staying in business or your Dr is no longer taking your insurance. The only ones paying the dr will be us its like having no insurance.

If a state sets up a state insurance exchange, the insurance companies get a ton of subsidies to implement the exchange. If a state does not set up an exchange, the Federal govt will do so. However, if the Fed govt does so, there is no funding provided for the subsidies to the insurance companies in a Federal exchange scenario Oops!

This, of course, assumes that the federal government can set up anything at all. They have no appropriation for establishing federal exchanges, and the GOP-controlled House of Representatives certainly isn't interested in bailing them out of that pickle.

Section 1311 of the ACA provides for premium subsidies to insurance companies in state exchanges only. No such funding mechanism exists for a federal exchange, leaving the feds unable to offer the billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded subsidies needed to purchase insurance company support.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Obama administration decides to ignore the law (what a stretch!) and distribute subsidies on a federal exchange anyway. This would create an actionable breach of the law, and those affected by it (employers within the state) would have standing to sue. But that benefit is out the window if a state sets up an exchange.

Exchanges are the new government bureaucracies through which millions of Americans will be compelled to purchase ObamaCare's overpriced and overregulated health insurance. Through these bureaucracies, insurance companies will receive hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. Without these bureaucracies, ObamaCare cannot work.

This statement from the Cato Institute lays bare the fiction that ObamaCare is inevitable. Indeed, the ACA perches precariously on a ledge, peering into an abyss of its own making. By relying on the states to do all the heavy lifting in setting the keystone of ObamaCare in place -- the exchange -- they neglected to devise a contingency plan in case the states rejected this mother of all unfunded mandates.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Maybe Romneys wont cost us as much and at least provide a Dr when we need one. We know Obamas stinks some of us are already seeing it in action. We know he lied he said it wouldnt be a tax and surprise here it is. He lied and said we could keep our DR , keep our insurance more lies. You cant keep your Dr when he tells you he is no longer staying in business or your Dr is no longer taking your insurance. The only ones paying the dr will be us its like having no insurance.

I don't think he ever guaranteed that your Dr. was going to stay in business nor did he tell you that your doctor was going to accept it. He just said if you like your Dr., keep him/her. If you like your insurance,keep it. Do you want the government to make your doctor stay in business and take your insurance? that goes against all conservative thinking. the govt would be running your life. Isn't that what the conservatives hate the most? too much government involved in your life?

He didnt tell us most Dr's will be quitting Thanks to Obamacare and the ones that are still her are so swamped with medicaid patients they aren't taking on new patients This is happening in AZ , Wa and a couple other states right now. You can deny it all you want its a fact .

Obamacare Nightmare: 40 Percent Of All U.S. Doctors Plan To Bail Out Of The Profession Over The Next Three Years

America will face a shortage of at least 90,000 doctors by 2020. The new health care law increases demand for physicians by expanding insurance coverage. This change will exacerbate the current shortage as more Americans live past 65.

By 2025 the shortage will balloon to over 130,000, Len Marquez, the director of government relations at the American Association of Medical Colleges, told The Daily Caller.

I don't think he ever guaranteed that your Dr. was going to stay in business nor did he tell you that your doctor was going to accept it. He just said if you like your Dr., keep him/her. If you like your insurance,keep it. Do you want the government to make your doctor stay in business and take your insurance? that goes against all conservative thinking. the govt would be running your life. Isn't that what the conservatives hate the most? too much government involved in your life?

So.....by reading this, you are admitting that Obama was playing fast and loose with the truth???